Angels Name Change Gets More Interesting

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, I'll look at a map of Anaheim to remind me, but IIRC, it's just kind of a haphazard non-planned suburban sprawl not unlike most suburbs. That's not a city, guys.

[Mac the Knife]

ICS and I have had our share of spats, but he's right on the ball that the Angels have no right to use "California" as their location. FOUR OTHER TEAMS. Come on.

Actually TC, you're technically wrong: the Angels in fact are the only team in MLB (well, at least in the AL) that can use "California," as it was written into their original franchise agreement back in 1960-61.

Where was the outcry against the California Angels back in the 70's and 80's though? The Dodgers, A's, Padres and Giants have all been around since at least 1969. Answer: there was none. And I don't think there would be if they went back to it.

[The_Admiral]

I don't know, you tell me. Where was the outcry? I don't know if it was publicized at the time, seeing as the information age had not yet dawned, allowing time to be spent on such piddling crap, but I'm sure there were people within the clubs and the fanbases who were kind of miffed that the Angels were claiming an entire state when there were four other teams.

[Brian in Boston]

There are people in Chicagoland who live in Schaumburg, work in Wheeling, go to a hospital in Park Ridge, see a movie in Arlington Heights, and go golfing in Barrington Hills, but they still see themselves as being Chicagoans to an extent, and not being part of some "northwest suburbs" sphere. You can go from suburb to suburb without touching the main city and still be part of its metropolitan area. I don't see why Anaheim is any different.

Because, unlike the people you've cited in Chicago's burbs who "see themselves as being Chicagoans to an extent", the vast majority of Anaheim - indeed, Orange County - residents don't see themselves as Los Angelenos. Therein lies the difference - and the rub.

In effect, you've answered your own question. Those "Chicagoans" cited by you, see themselves as being so.

By the way, while Arlington Heights, Schaumburg, Naperville and Elgin may strike you as "very large", their populations (76,432... 73,345... 135,858... and 94,487, respectively) don't approach that of Anaheim. Another reason that comparing them to Anaheim is akin to comparing apples and - dare I say it - Oranges.

[Mac the Knife]

I'm sure there were people within the clubs and the fanbases who were kind of miffed that the Angels were claiming an entire state when there were four other teams.

Find me three who were miffed back in '66, and I'll believe the argument. Until then though, my guess is that everyone watching the sports report when it was announced went "Whatever" and switched the channel to watch 'Dragnet' or whatever was on TV at the time... same as they did with the change to "Anaheim" (except with the eyeroll that accompanied the "Whatever"), and to the "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" (except that the eyeroll was joined by an exclamation of "WTF?")

[Brian in Boston]

One more thing to point out:

Anaheim: 328,014

Long Beach: 476,564

Long Beach actually has its own financial district, and one of the busiest ports in the world, as well as an arena and convention center. Anaheim has no downtown (if you don't count Downtown Disney), no skyscrapers, and minus the convention center, theme parks, and stadia, it looks exactly like every other suburb in the LA area. Even Irvine, in South OC, has a booming financial district.

However, you can't simply subtract the development in Anaheim that doesn't suit your argument. The convention center, theme parks and stadia do - in fact - exist in Anaheim.

What's more, Anaheim's stadia play host to a pair of major-league professional sports franchises... and the city is negotiating to become host to a third. Long Beach is home to which MLB, NBA, NFL and/or NHL franchise(s)?

Further, while Anaheim may currently lack a core "downtown" and plethora of "skyscrapers", there is no getting around the fact that the city does possess a business infrastructure - including financial services - beyond playing host to Disneyland.

Interestingly enough, when it comes to the subject of the Angels' naming debacle and the City of Long Beach: Long Beach was Gene Autry's first choice to become the new home of the Angels after he failed to get a new ballpark built for the team in Los Angeles. The insistence of city leaders that the team be named the Long Beach Angels put the kibosh on the deal.

[rams80]

By the way, while Arlington Heights, Schaumburg, Naperville and Elgin may strike you as "very large", their populations (76,432... 73,345... 135,858... and 94,487, respectively) don't approach that of Anaheim. Another reason that comparing them to Anaheim is akin to comparing apples and - dare I say it - Oranges.

You'll notice that Anaheim covers a much larger geographic area that any Chicago suburb. Hence the larger population.

(God, I'm actually defending Chicagoland, I'm gonna throw up now.)

[mydogisgomez]

maybe the angels should use "los angeles" for ten or so more years then switch to "orange county" for about ten years then switch to "southern california" for about ten years, etc... it all doesn't change much, except make the franchise look ridiculous. their fans will be their fans no matter what state, region, city, or county they stick in front of their name. yes "los angeles" makes sense because it's the "city of angels" but if you go by that, then time for the lakers to get a new name. good baseball puts butts in the seats, not a new name that all of the sudden includes a new geographic region.

[LMU]

I think we can come to a conclusion from this debate. Since we can't even agree on if Anaheim is a major city or a suburb, while Los Angeles is a vast metropolis with the second largest media market in the country, then its obvious why Arte renamed the team. People outside of the area probably don't know where Anaheim is, and probably just think "theme park," while Los Angeles is common knowledge to everyone. Georgia Frontiere knew this when she moved the Rams in, and Arte knows the same thing.

[tp49]

There shouldn't be a debate as to whether Anaheim is a city because it is. The City of Anaheim was incorportaed under the General Laws of the State of California. However, it is also a suburb of Los Angeles

Anaheim to me seems similar in some respects to Newark, New Jersey which is that state's largest city but is a part of the New York media market and to some considered a New York suburb. Like Anaheim (OC Register), Newark has it's own newspaper in the top 50 for circulation (the Newark Star-Ledger) but does not have a television outlet. However, when the Devils move to Newark I don't foresee them changing their name to the Newark Devils.

The main reason Moreno is doing this is to try and gain more media exposure in the LA market. Until they started winning the Angels have always been relegated to a lower status to the Dodgers, and even now they are dwarfed by the Dodgers when it comes to media exposure. However, I don't see the name change to LA having hte effect Moreno desires as it takes a long time for attitudes to change.

[Hat Boy]

There shouldn't be a debate as to whether Anaheim is a city because it is. The City of Anaheim was incorportaed under the General Laws of the State of California. However, it is also a suburb of Los Angeles

I don't know anything about the Los Angeles area, so I pose this question:

When you drive into Anaheim, is there a sign that says "Now entering Anaheim"?

[T-man3]

I agree on the thought that they shold go back to the California Angles and keep it.

[winghaz]

I don't think anybody paid any attention to the Angels in 1966.

[RickV]

What's more, Anaheim's stadia play host to a pair of major-league professional sports franchises... and the city is negotiating to become host to a third.

Here's a thought. If Anaheim is successful in getting an NFL franchise, do you really think the NFL will allow the team to be called the "Anaheim Saints, Chargers, whatever"?

[EatSleepJeep]

So where's the outcry about the Golden State Warriors? They are named after the state's nickname. There is no California branded NBA team, yet they have the Golden State Warriors. The Gopher State Timberwolves? The Sunshine State Heat? The Lone Star State Mavericks? It's ridiculous. But I guess it's a good thing for them since the Warriors did an intra-state move in '71 after arriving from Philly in '62.

Side note:

California is famous for the intra-state move. The Clippers moved to LA in '84 after spending 6 seasons in San Diego after their flight from NY. The Raiders had their circuitous pair of moves. The Chargers trekked south out of LA after only one season.

[Gothamite]

What's more, Anaheim's stadia play host to a pair of major-league professional sports franchises... and the city is negotiating to become host to a third.

Here's a thought. If Anaheim is successful in getting an NFL franchise, do you really think the NFL will allow the team to be called the "Anaheim Saints, Chargers, whatever"?

Of course they wouldn't.

That would be stupid.

[Gothamite]

There shouldn't be a debate as to whether Anaheim is a city because it is.  The City of Anaheim was incorportaed under the General Laws of the State of California.  However, it is also a suburb of Los Angeles

I don't know anything about the Los Angeles area, so I pose this question:

When you drive into Anaheim, is there a sign that says "Now entering Anaheim"?

Why wouldn't there be? Most suburbs have one.

There is no doubt that Anaheim is a city. That's a fact. There can be little doubt that Anaheim is also a suburb of Los Angeles - that's reality.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Fred T. Jane]

So where's the outcry about the Golden State Warriors? They are named after the state's nickname. There is no California branded NBA team, yet they have the Golden State Warriors. The Gopher State Timberwolves? The Sunshine State Heat? The Lone Star State Mavericks? It's ridiculous. But I guess it's a good thing for them since the Warriors did an intra-state move in '71 after arriving from Philly in '62.

Side note:

California is famous for the intra-state move. The Clippers moved to LA in '84 after spending 6 seasons in San Diego after their flight from NY. The Raiders had their circuitous pair of moves. The Chargers trekked south out of LA after only one season.

Actually, the Lone Star Mavericks sounds the best out of the choices you've given. Compared to the Golden State Warriors, it's not that bad either.

[RickV]

What's more, Anaheim's stadia play host to a pair of major-league professional sports franchises... and the city is negotiating to become host to a third.

Here's a thought. If Anaheim is successful in getting an NFL franchise, do you really think the NFL will allow the team to be called the "Anaheim Saints, Chargers, whatever"?

Of course they wouldn't.

That would be stupid.

Exactly. Shouldn't that put the whole correctness of the Los Angeles Angels moniker to bed?